The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Originally posted by Raptor22
if them killing ahmaud was in question then yes. Its not. They admitted it. Niw they're providing their defense. Their defense is they were legally detaining him for a felony he committed. Now they have to prove ahmaud committed the felony they are accusing him of in their defense.

The state is under no burden or obligation to prove the accused defense.

Wrong, they never admitted to murder. Again, our courts work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. the state actually has prove they are guilty of murder in a court of law.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, they never admitted to murder. Again, our courts work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. the state actually has prove they are guilty of murder in a court of law.

But how can he be wrong? Whirly bingo'ed his post.

Originally posted by Surtur
But see I don't think it's true that to pass hate crime laws they would need to LEGALLY prove racism lol. Where would you get that idea?

If Georgia lawmakers want to add hate crime laws you truly are saying it can't be done unless a specific instance of racism is proven?

But then, "proving" it is questionable. Proof to one wouldn't be proof to the other.

Some unintelligent folk think skin color is all the proof needed.

I'm fascinated by you thinking they need a legit rationale to pass a law. They just need enough people in power to agree to it. Can you explain what has caused you to believe otherwise?

Im confused which legal right u have a problem with and in what way u would like 2 fix it.

Its like ur arguing that public opinion can shape the laws of the country we live in. then no shit. Or ur arguing that misinformation and misconceptions can be persuasive in shaping those opinions. then yeah no shit also. Those are the unintended consequence of the freedoms we have. They have been happening since the country was founded and will happen as long as we're free.

Im actually confused as to where ur problem actually rests or what u want 2 do about it.

Is it peoples rights to free speech?

Or is it the way laws are made and passed in this country?

Or r u out to make it so that if anyone in the country says something is a fact when its not 100% a fact they get punished or something?

Originally posted by Raptor22
and like i said before if they want to pass the law it will have 2 go thru proper channels and claims will have 2 be legally proven.

U said the racism would need to be legally proven.

I won't say you're lying, I will just assume you forgot the exact way you phrased it.

There is no way Georgia would have to legally prove racism was the motivating factor in order to create hate crime laws. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Wrong, they never admitted to murder. Again, our courts work on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. the state actually has prove they are guilty of murder in a court of law.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i never said they admitted to murder. Murder is the illegal killing of someone. I said they admitted to killing him. Their defense is they killed him legally, which is based on them legally detaining him which is based on him committing a felony which they have to prove in order to prove their defense.

Again, that isn't how our courts work. they are innocent until proven guilty. the burden is on the state to prove it was murder.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Again, that isn't how our courts work. they are innocent until proven guilty. the burden is on the state to prove it was murder.

Originally posted by Raptor22
its exactly how the courts work.

No, it's not.

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, it's not.

so if the prosecutors say it was murder and the defendants say no, it's not on the prosecutor to prove it?

what is their role?

Originally posted by Raptor22
yes it is

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/how-does-the-criminal-justice-system-work.html

The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment. A case begins with law enforcement officials, who investigate a crime and gather evidence to identify and use against the presumed perpetrator. The case continues with the court system, which weighs the evidence to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/burdens-proof-criminal-cases.html

Originally posted by Surtur
But how can he be wrong? Whirly bingo'ed his post.

😆 😆 🤣 😂 😂

Well, shit... if pooty gave his wittle seal of approval then that obviously settles the matter. I mean, what more does a person need to actually be proven right, correct? 😆 😆 💃 💃

Originally posted by Silent Master
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/how-does-the-criminal-justice-system-work.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/burdens-proof-criminal-cases.html

To be fair he could be from another country. I'd respect that excuse.

Originally posted by Raptor22
not sure what court docs ur referring 2. Do u have a link. Sry if u posted it already and i missed it but this thread grew prettt big pretty quick and im sure i missed a few things.

You're fine: don't worry, I'm not going to jump all over you. I know how it gets in these threads but as long as people remain calm, avoid personal attacks, these discussions can last pages while maintaining respect.

👆

Here is that document I referenced. Note that it references the actual laws for all positions he takes:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Here is the police/court report document which lists Larry English as a burglary and trespassing victim:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Keep in mind, Larry was the one that rallied the McMichael's which is why the court doc says "first hand knowledge."

Also, it shows that McMichael saw Arbery "hauling ass" after breaking in and that Arbery matched the person on the video footage from the previous breakins (the break-ins that happened prior to that day which had everyone on high-alert).

Lastly, and this is what should have stopped this case from going anywhere, the original prosecutor mentions a 3rd video which has not been made public.

In a separate document, Mr. Barnhill stated that video exists of Mr. Arbery “burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.” In the letter to the police, he cites a separate video of the shooting filmed by a third pursuer.

Mr. Barnhill said this video, which has not been made public, shows Mr. Arbery attacking Travis McMichael after he and his father pulled up to him in their truck.

The video shows Mr. Arbery trying to grab the shotgun from Travis McMichael’s hands, Mr. Barnhill wrote. And that, he argued, amounts to self-defense under Georgia law. Travis McMichael, Mr. Barnhill concluded, “was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

And love them or hate them, NYTimes is the source for this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html

Originally posted by Raptor22
It would be nice 2 have the whole 3 min vid. It would help remove the speculation 2 the burglary.

Im not sure how any determination either way could have been reached on the lawful pursuit angle at least until the intent is proven. If intent cant be proven, then technically no burglary occurred, therefore nobody had first hand knowledge of a felony, since it technically didn't happen.

As far as i see it, they still have 2 prove intent to prove burglary to prove felony to prove legal citizen arrest.

Exactly. As soon as he touches or rummages through anything in that video, nothing can stop the burglary label as defined by Georgia law. It can no longer be "he just walked around, didn't do anything" and instead, "it's an obvious burglary casing and he had the intent to burglarize the place if he found anything" which then puts the McMichael's pursuit in the legal category instead of it being up for interpretation.

Originally posted by Raptor22
Like i said maybe its been proven and i just haven't seen the evidence yet but if not, Ahmauds intent is one of first things the defense will have 2 prove when building their house of cards. And if that 1 falls i see the whole house crumbling with it.

According to the original prosecutor who has another video that has not be released to the public, it's not the item being considered. What is being considered is if deadly force was legally justifiable in that scenario.

Also, here's the image of the supposed hammer that people keep talking about:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXg1SphX0AAy42w?format=jpg&name=900x900

I would love to see the evidence listing of all crime scene items. So this rumor can be put to bed.

And even if in that specific video we have he didn't rob anyone...it seems quite clear the reason is he got spooked and fled the scene.

I'm not sure how else to explain why he didn't sprint into the place and just sprinted out. Is this a weird form of jogging where you walk and then do some sprinting? But then, sprinting isn't jogging either.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're fine: don't worry, I'm not going to jump all over you. I know how it gets in these threads but as long as people remain calm, avoid personal attacks, these discussions can last pages while maintaining respect.

👆

Here is that document I referenced. Note that it references the actual laws for all positions he takes:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Here is the police/court report document which lists Larry English as a burglary and trespassing victim:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Keep in mind, Larry was the one that rallied the McMichael's which is why the court doc says "first hand knowledge."

Also, it shows that McMichael saw Arbery "hauling ass" after breaking in and that Arbery matched the person on the video footage from the previous breakins (the break-ins that happened prior to that day which had everyone on high-alert).

Lastly, and this is what should have stopped this case from going anywhere, the original prosecutor mentions a 3rd video which has not been made public.

And love them or hate them, NYTimes is the source for this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html

Exactly. As soon as he touches or rummages through anything in that video, nothing can stop the burglary label as defined by Georgia law. It can no longer be "he just walked around, didn't do anything" and instead, "it's an obvious burglary casing and he had the intent to burglarize the place if he found anything" which then puts the McMichael's pursuit in the legal category instead of it being up for interpretation.

According to the original prosecutor who has another video that has not be released to the public, it's not the item being considered. What is being considered is if deadly force was legally justifiable in that scenario.

Also, here's the image of the supposed hammer that people keep talking about:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXg1SphX0AAy42w?format=jpg&name=900x900

I would love to see the evidence listing of all crime scene items. So this rumor can be put to bed.

Im sure there are some legal reasons or technicalities or some such, but this whole, different things being leaked at different times makes it hard to get an exact picture of what actually happened.

For instance when did Larry rally the Mcmichaels? There was no mention of talking to larry. It was just Mcmichael was in his yard when he saw the suspect from previous break ins running, he called for his son and the chase was on.

"McMichael stated there have been several Break - ins in the neighborhood and
further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. Mcmichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis ( ) and said " Travis the guy is running down the
street lets go " . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .
Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn ' t know if the male was
armed or not " . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he
stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed
McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down Satilla
Drive toward Burford Drive McMichael stated when they arrived at the
intersection of Satilla Drive and Holmes Drive, they saw the unidentified male
running down Burford drive McMichael then stated Travis drive down Burford and
attempted to cut off the male. stated the unidentified male turned
around and began running back the direction from which he came and " Roddy "
attempted to block him which was unsuccessful Michael stated he then jumped
into the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to
intercept him ."

Were these convos with larry from previous days giving them first hand knowledge of previous suspected crimes or from the break in that day?

Keep in mind im not arguing these things as much as im arguing that the things like who knew what and when did they know it and who had proof of what at what time are going to be major points of contention.

"According to the original prosecutor who has another video that has not be released to the public, it's not the item being considered"

Is this something that he didnt consider when he was on the case or is he speaking for the new DA that is handling it now.

"It appears Travis McMichael,Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were following, in hot pursuit, a burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable cause"

This is why id really like 2 see the video. While it might "appear" that way to him and he might not have considered other parts, he didn't think there was enough to bring charges and hes not handling it anymore. The new DA could see the same tape and it could appear to him that they didnt have sufficient first hand probable cause.

Edit: im not sure what was up with those pdf links or if it was something with my phone but everytime i tried to copy and paste text like every 3rd or 4th word got deleted and i had to keep going back and filling in sentences. It really sucked and i got fed up at the end so if something doesn't make sense let me know.

YouTube video

Originally posted by Surtur
And even if in that specific video we have he didn't rob anyone...it seems quite clear the reason is he got spooked and fled the scene.

I'm not sure how else to explain why he didn't sprint into the place and just sprinted out. Is this a weird form of jogging where you walk and then do some sprinting? But then, sprinting isn't jogging either.

You mean walk around a neighborhood, look around to ensure the coast is clear, and then enter a private property?

And then run away when people try to confront you because you match the exact appearance of the video evidence of a person who had burgled the area multiple times in the past?

It's insane how we were all force-fed this narrative he was a teen out for a jog when the video was first released. None of that makes sense even in context. Why would he aggressively run to the right, off the road, and attack a man for no apparent reason if he was just out for a jog? Bath salts?

I don't understand why everyone has to make everything about race. If the media and the SJWs really cared about black lives, they'd focus on every single young black man that dies each day instead of this one scenario where the black man was definitely on the run after trying to burgle, again, a neighborhood.

Originally posted by Silent Master
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/how-does-the-criminal-justice-system-work.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/burdens-proof-criminal-cases.html

"Generally, the prosecution has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But while a defendant isn’t required to prove innocence in order to avoid conviction, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove guilt to the point of absolute certainty. And despite the general rule that the prosecution bears the burden of proof, there are instances when the burden shifts to the defendant."

"When the prosecution establishes a fact that tends to prove an element of a crime, the burden essentially switches to the accused, not necessarily to disprove the fact, but to raise a doubt about it. The defendant need not raise a doubt about every fact that the prosecution tries to prove—creating enough doubt about any point that’s crucial to a guilty verdict will suffice. Of course, the more convincing the fact is, the tougher the defendant’s burden is.

For instance, suppose the prosecution shows that, when searching the defendant, the police found a watch that store records reflect as stolen. In defense of a burglary charge, the defendant would probably have to give a plausible explanation for possessing the watch legally. By producing a receipt or testimony that the watch was a gift, the defendant would essentially shift the burden back to the prosecution."

To draw parallels switch stolen watch for killing Ahmaud. The prosecution doesn't have to prove they shot Ahmaud which caused his death. They admitted it already. In defense they will have to prove they did it legally much like the suspect in the example had to prove they acquired the watch legally. The burden had shifted.

Have we already moved on to blaming the murder-victim? Joy.

Here's an idea, if you suspect someone tried to rob a place and then ran away, call the police instead of chasing them down in a truck and murdering them. Handling a suspected thief is part of what the police do and what we pay them for.